Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#291

Post by Kephael »

jessaustin wrote: post #232
jimmaswell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too much density decreases the quality of life. Overcrowdedness, very long waiting times at every establishment or government office, increased ease of pickpockets etc. to "disappear into the crowd", higher prices. You already see all this in many existing cities; you want that, but worse? I'll take malls connected by highways over that any day. Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in…

Have you been to a mall recently? One that isn't dying? Where is it?

When I went to the Bellevue Square mall it was crowded beyond belief, it was like going back in time to before eCommerce.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#292

Post by dfee »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #214
lazerpants wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, NYC has a glut of unused ground floor retail space and a housing shortage, simultaneously.

It's so bad most commercial listings usually have something along the lines of "Not suitable as living space" in them. That's because you can rent a small ground floor office in some of the further north neighborhoods of Manhattan for almost half the price of the same square foot apartment, with similar amenities. The kitchen will be tiny (so is the one in your apartment), the bathroom will be tiny (so is the one in…

I wonder, what is the realistic chance of being caught and penalized for doing this anyway? Maybe it’d be worth it; maybe some folks are already doing this.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#293

Post by dfee »

sgc wrote: post #256
criddell wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A developer friend told me that one of his biggest problems are accounting related. I probably have this wrong, but I think he was saying that if he has commercial tenants, everything can be depreciated over 20 years. If the building is residential, then the depreciation schedule is 30 years. When you have a building that contains a mix of the two, it gets complicated.

27.5 residential and 39 commercial, but the problem remains. It isn't that big of a deal. Creating different depreciation schedules for different items on a property should be done no matter what (fences are 5 years, for example).

I’m going to ask for your source. Not because I doubt you, but because I wonder what other interesting depreciations exist. I never knew a fence had a 5 year tax lifetime.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#294

Post by beat »

davidw wrote: post #287
beat wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more complicated than that. The recent Minneapolis mayoral race had housing policy as a major issue, and Minneapolis is nothing if not progressive. Affordability and gentrification are interrelated, but so is quality. I live in a relatively low-density neighborhood of mostly 80-110 year old houses. Lately, we're getting new development in the form of cheap older rentals being torn down, and large-for-the-lots (t…

There was an article on this very subject the other day: http://www.sightline.org/2018/01/18/every-month-portlands-in...

Thanks, that was a really interesting read!

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#296

Post by francisofascii »

ams6110 wrote: post #188
weisser wrote: post #83

I live in Boulder and attribute much of the quality of life here to walkable (and bikeable) streets. We have hundreds of miles of multi-use paths that are used extensively for getting around and for recreation. Our main road downtown has a pedestrian mall for a number of blocks that keeps traffic away and lends itself to street performers, community events, and a generally calming atmosphere. Downtown parking lots ar…

> multi-use paths that are used extensively Is that really true? I live in a smaller version of Boulder. University town, we have a walkable downtown, trails and paths, and yes you see people using them. But the reality is that it's a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who live here. Same with buses. There are a few routes that service big apartment complexes and go too and from campus. Those get used. The others driv…

There is a ton of money being spent on vehicle infrastructure as well. People complain about empty buses, but we must consider that cars with a single occupant are only operating at 20%-25% capacity. Also think about all the land zoning for large backyards, and how often they are void of kids or people. Shared community parks and trails are probably a better use of space.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#297

Post by thriftwy »

IWeldMelons wrote: post #255
reaperducer wrote: post #3

This is something that certain cities have understood for many years. Chicago, for example, mandates that all new development from a simple three-story building to a 100-story skyscraper has retail at its base to improve the walkability of its streets and make its business corridors vibrant. This also helps push down retail rents even in the CBD, allowing local upstart businesses a shot at reaching the masses. Chicag…

The best urban environments I've lived in so far are the ones in the ex-USSR. They had moderate amount of street retail, not too much, but were very walkable. Today, in the area around me they began retrofitting the lowest levels of the condo buildings with cafeterias and such and it is becoming too busy, too messy and uncomfortable the people who lives in these buildings. Generally, what you need is not a retail in…

You should just confine yourself to whatever built before 70-s.

After that you have huge cities' outskirts packed with 9 to 17 storey apartment buildings with some greens between them, but no other amenities. Everything is far apart and (these days) packed with cars. There's public transport but roads are wide and far between, so going to bus stop is painful. A lot of cold winds too.

More central districts with ~5 story buildings are ok. Guess what, they're going to bulldoze those in Moscow, replace with aforementioned.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#298

Post by trgn »

jimmaswell wrote: post #290
trgn wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much like a Normal Rockwell painting. A community near to you and all the advantages that come with it. - The ability to just stop by a neighbor for a drink or a chat - Somebody to give your house keys to while you're on vacation, without inconveniencing them since they live so close - Being able to call your doctor off hours in an emergency because you have a personal relation beyond your yearly visit - The g…

Most of that sounds like a normal small town, besides walking to school, which I don't think I'd ever let a kid of mine do in the city before maybe late high school. In most towns there are school buses that have routes in the morning to bring kids to school from their houses. It's not a choice between only driving and walking.

It indeed sounds like a normal small tow!

From my perspective, we have bitter few of them. For me and many others, walkability is fundamental. It's fine if others don't agree. Our segment of the market is woefully underserved though, and we can see that in the fact that walkable neighorhoods and towns are always almost more expensive than areas that require car-dependency. I also think that price-differential is because of the constrained supply of walkable towns because collectively we prioritize speedy car travel at the expense of everything else.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#299

Post by lazerpants »

dfee wrote: post #292
jermaustin1 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so bad most commercial listings usually have something along the lines of "Not suitable as living space" in them. That's because you can rent a small ground floor office in some of the further north neighborhoods of Manhattan for almost half the price of the same square foot apartment, with similar amenities. The kitchen will be tiny (so is the one in your apartment), the bathroom will be tiny (so is the one in…

I wonder, what is the realistic chance of being caught and penalized for doing this anyway? Maybe it’d be worth it; maybe some folks are already doing this.

There is a "professional office" in a storefront two blocks from my office that I believe is just a guy's house. In my exploration of doing the same I found the following problems:

- no lease protections due to the lies you need to tell in order to get the commercial lease

- vermin issues in ground floor units (not bad until you need to store food and have bedding or clothes around)

- lease terms that are usually much longer than a residential lease

- lack of a shower in many commercial units (fixable but adds to the cost and may tip off a landlord)

- generally undesirable living situation (poor ventilation, light, loud businesses next door, layout)

- expense - these units are cheaper than similarly sized apartments, but they aren't usually cheap enough for one person alone, and the floorplans usually don't make for great roommate situations

I think it would work really well as a pied a terre though, if you have another place close to the city and can afford the commercial unit. Sleeping in your office is totally legal and does not run afoul of most commercial leases. Using it as a residence violates the lease.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#300

Post by IWeldMelons »

thriftwy wrote: post #297
IWeldMelons wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best urban environments I've lived in so far are the ones in the ex-USSR. They had moderate amount of street retail, not too much, but were very walkable. Today, in the area around me they began retrofitting the lowest levels of the condo buildings with cafeterias and such and it is becoming too busy, too messy and uncomfortable the people who lives in these buildings. Generally, what you need is not a retail in…

You should just confine yourself to whatever built before 70-s. After that you have huge cities' outskirts packed with 9 to 17 storey apartment buildings with some greens between them, but no other amenities. Everything is far apart and (these days) packed with cars. There's public transport but roads are wide and far between, so going to bus stop is painful. A lot of cold winds too. More central districts with ~5 st…

Not sure about the outskirts, but the urban cores are definitely not desolate and with no amenities. But I agree, ex-USSR urban planning is getting worse. Still not bad, compared to NYC.
Post reply on HN